[indiscernible]

>> first of all i want to thank all of you for taking the time. obviously this san important election. . very critical part we have a long and strong relationship. i look forward to getting his spority to help make a difference. -- his support to help make a difference. i'm just going to continue to take my messages to people and businesses. we have 48 days. >> so you must be encouraged? >> things are moving in the right direction. we are going to continue that.

that's why you're seeing the constant burr ath of negativity we're -- berauge -- talking about isis, we're talking about energy, we're talking about obamacare. she's voting with the president 99% of the time. >> last question -- [indiscernible] sure the people of new -- i can'tant to see find anybody i agree with 99% of the time. i don't agree with myself 99% of the time. this is just about partisanship.

we need someone who is going to go down there and consider these issues on the merits and keeping in eople of new hampshire ind.

[indiscernible conversations]

2014 coverageaign continues on thursday. senate the iowa u.s. debate. 2014, more than 100 debates for the control of congress. the comments we recently received from our viewers. >> the historical, educational shows for lack of a better expression are very informative and very highly education and invaluable to a young society today that does not value or understand the impact.

on how our ancestors shaped this country. i highly encourage you to show more programming over the like. thank you so much. >> i was watching the nancy pelosi. c-span is being liberal. this a classic example of what i am talking about. we do not need nancy pelosi giving us a weekly briefing today. steadyseems we get a diet of nancy pelosi. she does not always tell the truth and in fact she never tells the truth. give us a break. >> i enjoy your programming. especially the historical programs you have on. examination of little them.n and all of

very good programming. continue to let us know what you think of the programs we are watching. call us at -- e-mail us at -- or send us a tweet at -- join in c-span conversation, like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. staffmer joint chiefs of talks about u.s. strategy to combat the islamic militant group isis in syria and iraq. this is just under one hour. >> "wash to journal" continues. formerhe general is a chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. he joins us now as we continue u.s.ssion -- discussing

strategy in isis. looking at the threat posed by isis and the plan the obama administration has come up with here to combat isis, do you think isis can be defeated without having boots on the ground question mark -- ground? to see we haved a strategy and it is being articulated. the thing worrisome is that we cannot use solely air pilots to defeat isis. that begs the question, if you cannot do that, do we need to put boots on the ground? generalyou heard dempsey said last week that ultimately, we need to be prepared to have to put boots on the ground. i would submit that marty is right on track with that. first and foremost, we need to think about the thousands of that we trained in iraq that should be capable now of being the boots on the ground .

is there nation and we trained them. it is time to fight against isis. serve as theey boots on the ground. can't, we have got a bigger problem. >> he mentioned a lot of reaction on capitol hill, leading to articles with headlines like "strategic risk widens between obama and the pentagon. ?o you see a risk >> i think marty is doing what any good chairman and military advisor is doing, he is giving the president is best recommendation based on what the military seizes the right answer. we all know this problem is not just a military problem. it is more of a political and this morning.blem president obama has got to be involved in the informational

problem, fighting against the that isis uses in washington dc and all the other capitals in the world. president obama has got to put it all together, to bring the political face together and the military. what is worrisome is we say we could win this without boots on the ground. limp -- limiting ourselves in that matter sends the wrong signal to the enemy. if we will not put those on the ground, are we serious about winning the war? first and foremost, let's use the troops we trained. the chilean dollars. train iraqis to defend themselves together -- to give them a chance at an inclusive government. let's push the new president and anme minister into doing --

inclusive government first and foremost, and then start to use to ground troops we trained carry troops to isis as well as othernt groups fighting -- fighting support. he has got to form his own strategy within iraq, hopefully with our help, but go after them himself. you talk about sending messages. are you concerned the administration is to open about what it is and is not willing to do when it comes to isis? >> as a military man, i would tell you i never agree with showing our cards to the enemy. let's let them wonder what our next step will be. what are we willing to do? you can have a strategy. the american people understand there are certain things in the government that ought not be

given to the enemy. for example, an exit strategy should not include the precise date attached to it. it plays right in the hands of the enemy. he can wait you out and lay back and wait until you leave. let's don't show everything to the enemy. we are not going to have to use ground troops or american troops, that is telling him you're not going to face america, so go ahead and pursue this and it going. sends the wrong signal, clearly. >> he talk about the dynamic when you're trying to figure out which cards to show in which cars not to, the dynamic and the the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of defense on capitol hill testifying. how does that work and who gets to decide what they're talking about? >> it goes to the national security council and the meetings you have with the entire group in one room, the president, the vice president,

and all the key secretaries discussing our national policy on national security strategy, talking about what we should and should not lay out for the world to see. it is more than just the american people. the dynamic goes from the secretary and the chairman, when they go to the white house. hopefully, they are of one mind. the secretary dealing with policy issues, which includes our communications plans. coming in withan military options we have and a recommendation as to what would military -- m a if that is the case, they lay out their concerns in the national security council. the president is the deciding member of the council. he makes the decision as to which way he wants to go and what ties invest with the

political and information plan envisions for his strategy. that is the plan we go forward with. two-person that personally think the political states. kenneth isis are getting in the way of the military strategy being laid out and discuss? >> not in any way, shape, or form. it has got to be one plan, one strategy. the fact that there may be a little bit of disagreement within the administration as to what is best, there is nothing new. when we went into cozumel, the president understood very well that air power might be able to win the war. we have done everything we should to make sure we have not an american troops on the ground and ultimately, with a strategy, we have got serbia to surrender

and pulled their troops back out of kos about. however, you cannot use the same model when you look at isis and iraq. iraq, they can pull their tanks and artillery, anything they have got, the headquarters into hospitals, schools, things of that nature so the air power going after them pass to kill a tremendous number of innocent civilians and destroy this things like mosques and schools and hospitals in order to kill them. we do not have a homeland to go after like we did. you're now left with, you have got to go in and rule them out. i would say again first and foremost, it ought to be iraqi ground troops. i would not take american groups off the ground and off the table here if that is what it will take to defeat isis. general hugh shelton.

mewill start on our line for -- for independence, missouri. thank you for your service. women talk about terrorism, isis -- my question to the general is, if the general was going to advise president obama [indiscernible] goes for the regime change in of appeasementte policy for three decades? thank you very much. host: go ahead. for yourank you question and kind comments. iran is the major source of

problems throughout the middle east. let's not forget iran is the greatest asked order of terrorism in the world. let's not forget iran is pursuing -- pursuing a unique capability. refused toteadfastly give up their enrichment program and lowering or reducing the stock pile. they are a problem and not part of the solution. they are part of the problem. i would tell you up front, i putd first and foremost iran to the side and not let them get involved in iraq in any way, shape, or form. they would use that to strengthen their position in iraq, a physician they have lost now with malik it. malki was an iranian public -- puppet. return to the iranian

dissidents, that are stationed right now. let's start treating them as human beings, as citizens, and giving them freedom of movement. let's let them take the sewage out of the camp. let's treat them as criminals. they are the enemy of iran. look at the 10 points, it reads like america's declaration of independence. in favor of freedom of religion, freedom of rest, all of the things we hold near and dear in america. why should they not be a friend of america and why should we support them? that of them. after all, america guaranteed their safety and security. we should not say we no longer have a role in that just because we are no longer in iraq. we

need to let the prime minister as if theyat them are american citizens and any attack on them is an attack against america. ambassador was asked about what the u.s. is and is not willing to do when it comes to iran yesterday on faith and nation. here's a bit of what she had to say. >> secretary kerry said last week in new york that every part in this, including iran. what is ackley is iran's part? >> let me stress we are not coordinating sharing intelligence with iran. the secretary met iran made it used isil as an enemy and a threat. in that respect, although our operations around rejecting and degrading isil, we are waiting to hear if iran has a constructive role to play. i know iran's behavior and

actions in syria have been destructive from our perspective, supporting hezbollah and the rest -- assad regime. exhibiting any energy or intensity going after isaiah, spending much more time going after civilian neighborhoods than going after a profound monstrous terrorist threat. they have received support in iran in this conflict. those actions have to change if we will deal with isil in a conference of way. assad is not somebody who can be relied upon. shelton.eral guest: i think she hit it out of the ballpark. she said basically what i would say. we have got to treat iran as part of the problem and not part if iran has an. constructive role we should play on this, we should hear him, but

let's not fall play. let's watch very carefully what they're talking about when they talk about helping in syria. forget iran wants to be the key player in the middle east and they want to be the one that everyone in the middle east has to kindle two -- cater to. we talk about iraq and influence they exert it over malki. at the common iranian puppet. i believe iran would continue to pursue that to the last to do great. they will not give up on long-term goals. caller: i want to ask a question about the united states.

the former guest of minnesota having great population of and a lot of the fighters have went back to somalia and different places, and then recruited. also, the boston bombing. what i don't understand is why we are not focusing more on united states safety than other countries. the republicans were talking about, there is no money. there is no money for unemployment, for different people. here in the united states. run.sota is cap companies, doctors, the banks, everybody is run by other people that come from other countries. first and foremost, you make a very valid point. we have to be concerned about homeland. secretary johnson in

homeland security and a director with the fbi, that is part of the major focus, protecting america. that justt suggest because we have a large number of people that come from different countries in the world soon to be congregated in one spot, you look at watching and easy and you find almost the very same thing you mentioned about minnesota. we need to be vigilant and watch that. i would also say any time we have an individual who visits anther country, whether attempt to go to syria, whether it is trying to get into iraq or whatever, we need to make sure we understand why they are going and monitor them very closely. our previous speaker in the program this morning suggest it may ought to be a crime to go to these countries. i believe we need legislation. in countries like

syria right now. if we have american that will go join freedom fighters in somalia isis,s. or iraq, joining we also have a law that says, that is an act of treason punishable by death. we ought to become very hard on that. in mys a serious offense opinion. when america turns its back on its country, he ought to give up all his rights as an american and convicted of treason. >> talking about threats against the united states, against the united states. we are joined now by the former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff who currently works as the shelton of the hugh leadership center. basically starting with young high school students, going all the way up until best

to the corporate level, stretching value leadership, integrity, ethics, compassion, things that make great leaders. trying to stress leaders that lead by the golden rule, that people respect. we will leave a legacy of being a great leader. >> general shelton served as the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. here to answer your questions and take your comments. leno, maryland, on our line for republicans, your next. caller: first, i would like to thank the general for your service. i myself am a vet. i can kind of speak to what he is saying. just as when i was a veteran, was part of one of the last groups that was supposed to go to iraq and was pulled from that because the president wanted to pull our troops. our mission as intelligence

soldiers was to create the iraqis. that created a vacuum. people need to realize that. , whichnot follow through the general and other guys probably said was coming. it created a vacuum to what we see now. that is one. the american military, this is what we do. everybody does not like the military to be in certain places, but it is what we trained to do. first of all, thank you for your service. it is very commendable. thank you. i would agree with you 100%. you have to have an orderly withdrawal plan whenever you going to the country. you have to have an exit strategy. part of the exit strategy is to make sure you leave in place a government that can stand up and , a government that can survive.

it is important as we're doing this is to make sure as we pull our troops out that the in factnt is one that will not be, as in the case of byki, very controlled another foreign entity, in this case iran. if it is, no matter how long we stay there, the government is headed in the wrong direction. unless we have an exit strategy that includes a long-term presence to give the country time to get on its feet and operate the way we feel like they should be able to operate and defend itself, if you will, and provide for its own security, and we in fact will and in this case in iraq, we saw the iranians moving quickly influencing malki and starting to turn things around. a very nonsectarian government, one noninclusive and did not include iraqi tribes, did not include sunnis, and therefore, it started falling apart quickly.

caught in the middle of all of that were the 3000 iranian dissidents with -- that should be supporting and making sure they're taking care for getting out of the mess we left them in. host: melvin is up next. you're on with general shelton. i want to thank the general for his service and the undertaking with students. one thing i want to remind him of is, when you do this, make sure the information you lay is always accurate. what hedempsey, actually said with respect to the president's plan, he agreed to the plan as is. after being questioned several times, he indicated if there came a time when troops may be necessary, i would make the recommendation for the troops to be used only as advisory. he did not say he wanted troops on the ground now. this is like individual undergoing operation.

i think we can treat this without any surgery. if it comes to that, we will do that. he did not indicate anything about putting troops in initially. he said i agree with the plan assets. you are exactly right. that is exactly what he said. what he did they was ultimately, if the plan could not exceed without troops on the ground, then that might be required. he agreed with the plan. that is important. he was also quick to say that plan might not be sufficient to ensure a victory against isis and if it was not him about my call for putting troops on the ground. that in fact is what we will have to wait and see. if iraq is come through the way they should, the troops on the

ground will be the iraqis. there will have to be troops on the ground to defeat isis. we are already seeing them modify tactics and techniques to include moving up against populated areas and into populated areas so you have to kill a lot of civilians there it is the iraqi troops go in and root them out of there and put them in places where air power can get to them, and we can win it was just the iraqi troops there in america, i think we all hope that is how it turns out here in >> in the wake of the testimony and capitol hill last this one in the washington post, military skepticism of obama's plan. press,ay, on meet the admiral mike mullen was asked about his disagreement and here is a bit of his reaction. dempsey,k when general our current chairman, anticipated a question at a hearing that he would be asked about ground troops, took it off the table in his opening standpointrom the

of, if the circumstances back.ted it, that he go that is a natural part of the discussion in this debate about how to execute a mission. there should not be any question in the end of who decides this and that is the president. i think what general dempsey was trying to do is certainly understand, explain to some degree how the process works. i think it has been blown way out of proportion in terms of the disagreement between the military and the president. do you agree? has it been blown out of proportion? guest: i would say yes, to a degree. this is a natural debate that takes place when you go in with any kind of strategy. most of the time, i would say when you come out of the national security council meeting, the president has made

a decision. you have got pretty much an agreement across the board. in this case, as i indicated earlier, marty looking down from a military perspective, can see exactly what isis might do if in fact we used our air power. if the iraqis were not capable of routing them out for those populated areas and getting them thatith air power to them, would change dynamics of the demands so to speak. i think marty was laying the groundwork. that is part of the overall solution to the issue. and the way the system works. steve is a mess calling from new york on our line for independents. caller: good morning. general, and honor to talk to you.

i am wondering about the service to air missiles in syria. i am wondering where they went in the world with north korea, if we will put all this emphasis -- am power, i understand i right? i am not sure i know exactly where they stand in rank in the world, but they do have the capability. i would also they in the meantime, we use our air power in a hostile environment there that is one of the first things we have to consider. what types of systems do they have. that dictates what types of defense systems we use in order to nullify the effects of their air to air missiles. as you probably remember, we flew over iraq for years enforcing the no-fly zone and the no drive zone and they never hit one of our planes in the process. that was not just by accident. systemsecause defensive

we use, our electronic warfare systems, etc., were all in place and doing their job. did the same thing in both cases making sure we protect the winpower that we employ to the war against isil. >> there were concerns about syria passes air defense capabilities last year when the u.s. was considering airstrikes after the chemical weapons attack, correct? guest: without a doubt to the first things you do when fighting against an enemy that has that type of capability is you go in and take out the systems. you make sure you know if i them for the sake of the airmen who will be flying the close air support missions or the bombing missions over serial or iraq. new jersey, next, our line for independents. caller: good morning. as is chris. general, i want to thank you for your service.

typesoncerned about the of ammunition being used in iraq. i hear a lot about uranium and when i hear about troops coming home sick and the high cancer rates discovered both in iraq and former yugoslavia, i am there still being used and now, contaminated the war zones are, used the troops provided without session, we heard the second troop -- bush and ministration, the troops were not being provided with adequate protection when they were going to war because there were budget cuts and i was hoping for some answers. guest: we were worried first and foremost about the safety of our troops when we were committing to a hostile environment.

that would include protection against everything that we knew that was in that particular zone. and budget cuts, never entered into it, to be very candid. we prioritize those things that were necessary to protect our troops, their safety in their security. that was at the top of the list. and so that got funded. and so i feel confident, even though i'm not in the administration now, that those types of concerns are being taken into consideration, and that the troops are being provided with all the protection that we can, realizing the fact that if you have a war where you put troops on the ground like we did in iraq and now in afghanistan, that there are going to be certain hazards. not only from depleted uranium, but also from unexploded ordinance that is on the ground. it can be th very devastating. that is always our consideration, and that is what

our force commanders on the ground are taking into consideration when they are making other battle plans. host: we are talking with retired general hugh shelton. he was promoted to general and became canto commander-in-chieff the special operations command. we have them for the next 20 minutes or so. tom in pennsylvania on our line for republicans. caller: good morning. know, when weo were doing this thing with assad fighters andining jordan. it was publicized and on the news. do not understand why we need to train muslim fighters to go fight isis. it is clear to me we created isis. we funded these guys to fight

assad. but there only to his to islam, they are not going to fight with u.s. .e traded afghanistan these people.t why would we train muslims when they are our enemy? would berst of all i very cautious about putting in sayingn a category that because they are muslim they are our enemy. there are different types of muslim, almost as many as we have baptists or democrats in this country. and what we're talking about are the extremists. some great muslims, and i know a lot of them. we have muslims who ,olunteered to help us fight right the next morning on 912

after 9/11. they said they would do whatever was necessary to help us. i think we have to get involved in training. you have to, identify who the good guys are on the bad guys are. obviously, those extremists, the ones who want to bring harm to the united states and all "we are the ones to be aware of. but the ones who want to stand up and fight for an inclusive government, we need to train them, arm them, and equipped them because they will do the fighting on the ground that is necessary to preserve an inclusive government that may be one of our great friends in that region of the world. that is of course a region that is in the vital national interest of the united states. we have inproblem

syria right now in my opinion is that we have to be careful that the ones that we fund and help aren on the ground today the good guys, so to speak. the ones that we want to win great isis is clearly a group that we want to eliminate. we want to defeat, we want to kill, capture and destroy. not all people that live in that region are our enemy. and so we have to make sure that we target our efforts against those we want to succeed. so that if they -- if and when they succeed they will be out of our effort -- we can be proud of our effort. military does the u.s. cut down on these sort of attacks that we have seen especially in afghanistan in the situation that the caller brought up? had them right

here in the united states, fort aod being a good example of guy who went off the deep end. commanders throughout our armed forces have to be cognizant of their surroundings, of their own troops. you have to look at this major in fort hood is an example and say why did we not pick up on that before now? that goes back to our background checks, to our intelligence networks that we have. looking at all of our forces and we could areas that suffer harm or great damage and certainly when we are overseas we have to be very careful. vietnam was no exception. the viet cong tried to infiltrate our rakes, they are doing the same thing that we are finding now in afghanistan. you just have to be very beilant and you just have to careful to weed them out. as yout try as hard might, but every once in a while you will miss one. it cannot be 100%,

unfortunately. that we are as good as anyone in the world. host: a call on our line for republicans. of my questions is how do we stabilize syria after defeat isis on the ground? it does not seem like we have a plan for dealing with assad. how do we deal with an unstable syria after isil? question, and i wish i had an answer. assad is obviously not the answer, he has to go. isil we have to defeat, and a wrong claims they would like to iran claims they would like to help eliminate them, but they

are part of the problem. they take advantage when you do not have an inclusive government. they go into that crack and they get both groups to start fighting against the incumbent, with the hopes that whichever one wins will be in favor with the wrong -- with iran. we need to look at those who want an inclusive government, we areide who earlier on good support in this battle. the one that will be able to stabilize the country with our help and with the help of our allies and our friends, the 40 or 50 nations that would help to come in and stabilize the country. and that is the only answer. there is no >> solution, but -- quick solution, but we have to use all of our resources to make sure that it comes out like we

would like in the long run. effortore news on this to get our allies together. john kerry says the united states expects that turkey will haveup know that they secure the release of 49 hostages that were held by the militants. who are going to be the key region nations way to work with? guest: we need to have all of our nato allies involved with this in the region. and then we need to look at the eu and all of the eu members need to be involved. and then we need to look at our friends and allies in the middle east. , bahrain, theuae list goes on. the king of jordan is a great friend in this region. those of the key states we really need to focus on. there at get egypt,

for a long time there were one of our greatest allies. and now we do not have that as a right decision disintegrating. we need to look at all of these asians to help us in this fight. host: a few minutes left with general hugh shelton. we have a: our line for democrats. caller: good morning. i wanted you to take a look back -- we have to understand that we have a lot of tools in the

united states to protect the united states. and we have done a great job of cautious of rushing into a situation. this is a very complicated situation we are involved in right now. to the president, gnu, and to others that has done a good job, i think we should have caution before we actually -- your i want to get thoughts on that topic, how long it took them to come up with this strategy. some criticism has been leveled rumpled from capitol hill. hill.m folks on capitol guest: i think we waited way too long to recognize the influence , and we stuck with

up until they threw him out of office. we should not have done that. we allowed iraq to disintegrate and now we are having to fight ice will sil. the same thing happened in a syria. too long i think america did have a lack of leadership. i agree totally, and thanks for tor service, that you have be very cautious about rushing into these situations because you want to make sure in long-term that you're not some warning a group that is going to go into control and become another terrorist exporting organization that you wish you supported in the first place, like maliki turned out to be.

anytime america walks into the room, and i know this from having been the chairman with a all turnaround and look at the american in the room to see what he is going to say and what he is going to do. they look to america for leadership. it is the same way with our president. if we wait too long, others will step into the void. putin,e seen that with first in georgia, and now when you carry -- and now in the ukraine. of americanvoid leadership. a cautious, but stay in the lead is what i would advise. the boston globe from september 11. our linealling from for independents. caller: i would like to

respectfully disagree that the syria-- iran and main terrorist exporters of the middle east. we have allied with the sunnis in this conflict, and doing that ellie and its us in the middle east. initiates are seeing us as siding with the sunnis. this is a problem, seeing how iran is diametrically opposed to isis being a sunni fundamentalist group. logically -- it would be logical to ally ourselves with those who have completely

disavow these groups such as the kurds, the arabians, and the syrian government. host: general? first and foremost we need to understand that what we have supported throughout the united states is an inclusive government that includes everyone. we have not cited with a particular article and we see , excluding 8rge million sunnis from the government, and the kurds and the iraqi tribes. that is not right. -- saba start to disintegrate good we did not do anything about it. we did not put pressure on maliki to form an inclusive government like we should be doing now. it is important that the united states remains neutral up to a point. it needs to include all of its

people like our government does. it is undisputed fact that they are the largest exporter of terrorism in the world. everyone knows that. our cia, and ei, everyone will tell you that. i have no doubt that they are of of the problems we have in the middle east at this point. thene who is an enemy of united states as a friend of a ron, that is just how it works. cautious of any deal we could make with iran in low long-term -- in the long term. good morning. thank you very much for sharing your time. extremists being iran, who are

[indiscernible] as the enemy of everyone, what role cap may play -- can they play? guest: that is a great comment. she represents what the united states hold near and dear to their heart, she wants an inclusive government. dress,ts a freedom of freedom of religion, things that we feel are right in a democratic system. she represents that. she also represents -- she is

the leader of the iranian dissident group that is outside of her ron that wants to see iran get rid of the mullahs that are executing individuals right and left. is a very serious thing. the iraqi people deserve better than matt. that is what she would like to carry back to iran. and see thelike her doremist and the damage they make them valuable allies. host: a call from an independent. israel tonominate clean up the mess seeing as how according to edward snowden,

peeps supported has -- they supported head of isis. they shippedamas, an in the 1980's to use against a rock. iraq. host: do you want to talk about the role of israel? blame israel for having trained different people. we have trained people as well. they do not always turn out the way we would like for them to turn out. but you identify who you think the good guys are, who represents what you feel are important for the people of that particular region or that country, and you give it your best shot. i think israel can play a role

in this, and i think they can play a role through a number of means. they can play a role in supporting an individual taking charge in iraq. they can eliminate the shia militia that are closely allied to make sure that they do not create an inclusive government and become another puppet of iran. they can play a role in advising, the same way the united states plays. they are much closure to the region -- closer to the region. there are some issues that we do not have, but they could play a valuable role. good morning. veteran.etnam andnted to make a comment ask a good question -- asking

question. war, when they engagement,rules of it has gone a lot of jihad is killed over the last 40 years. f1used what we called 00s, a tactical nuclear weapon. them, the army used them in the canon. i would like to see them used in , to say did you get the message? and if they don't, to say did you get it this time? host: tactical nuclear weapons? employi am trained to

tactical nuclear weapons, i went through that course when i was a young officer in the military. i declare long way away from where we would want to use nuclear weapons because of all of the issues that they do create. the damage that they do. it is hard to separate the good guys from the bad guys, so you feel a tremendous number of .ivilians in the process i do not think we need to use nuclear weapons in this. there was a time and a place in our history when they were appropriate. and they may be again in the future. i would not rule them out, but i would not say to eliminate any type of ability, but now is not the time or place in my opinion. our democratfrom

line. caller: good morning. i am a retired sergeant major from the first infantry division . i went through the marine corps for the korean war. it is a pleasure to talk to a man with your caliber. in big mistake when we were a rocket gave the country back to them to we did not leave a general to set up a government like we did in japan and we did in germany. that was our big mistake. that is what we should have done. we should have dictated what had to go on, not let them to us what had to go on. with this administration in power queen do not know what they're going to do, but this man was never in command of anything. he was nothing but an organizer. he does not know the first thing

about military or foreign affairs or anything. no president should be an president unless he has had some type of military service. as far as what we should use, i would use napalm over there to teach them a lesson. service.anks for your semper fi. i think you're 100% right that we should have had a neck since strategy for iraq that left -- and exite strategy for iraq that left someone there. to make sure that the transition went as wernment envisioned it going. an inclusive government of all of the iraqi people, and left behind a stable government that could protected of borders and secure its own country with its police force. we trained both of those forces to do that.

the problem was we pulled the and on them in 2009, without that residual force in deteriorated rather rapidly. with the help of the iranians who wanted to see it deteriorate , and it developed into what we have today. a loud i sold to move into that sectarian cap and immediately start bubbling up to the surface and become a sizable force before we reacted to it. recognize that it was deteriorating, and we could have done a lot better. that is not what i would call america's finest hour. host: we do app >> president obama on the threats posed by foreign terrorist groups. we will talk with jay solomon about that you in meeting -- the united nations meeting.

later, purdue university president looks at higher education costs and academic standards. plus, your phone calls, facebook comments, and tweets. >> the 2015 c-span student cam video competition is underway. open to all middle and high school students. policies, law, or action by the executive, legislative, or judicial branch has affected you or your community. 200 cash prizes for students and teachers totaling $100,000. >> next, bob schaffer host a discussion on the militant group

isis and what the u.s. response should be. the panel includes a former bush administration national security office are -- advisor and julianna goldman of cbs news. also part of the csi team, senior advisor on transnational threats, homeland security, and counterterrorism.

was the deputy national security advisor in the bush administration. a former federal prosecutor who worked on terrorism cases, including the investigation of the uss cole. finally, julianna goldman, our newest cbs news correspondent. she is based here in washington and she came over from bloomberg in august and has more than a decade of experience. she covered both president obama's presidential campaigns and went with them to china. she got the first one-on-one interview with the president after his reelection and reported from the white house on the night that osama bin laden was killed. wrote but after trying hard to downplay policy in syria and iraq, the white house has dived in. you said the recorded the

headings of two americans have crystallized the whole policy approach by the obama administration. you said it is more military that should be. it seems like a good question to start us off with, what do you think about that? >> i think the next 800 words i wrote tried to capture that. [laughter] it is on the csis website. for a long time, the administration was cautious about being drawn too far into syria. we saw that caution manifested when the president a little more than a year ago hesitated to use military action. there seemed to be a confluence of forces, and we pulled off. people in the white house kept saying we are not sure what we can do in syria that would not open the door to further involvement.

in many ways our policy was to find almost as much by what it was not as what it was. there was a desire to avoid getting too sucked in. having isis spread into iraq where you have a government welcoming of u.s. involvement, where you have kurdish allies of the united states desirous for american involvement, it took it out of this messy how do you attack a hostile group in a hostile country and you are trying to work with a group to take down this government and on the other hand you don't want the group to win, it seemed much clearer in iraq. it provided an opportunity in iraq. the american public said we should be active against people killing americans in iraq. we support military action in iraq.

the problem the piece talks about is all the things worth doing, very few have military components. the harder part, diplomacy, economics, politics, intelligence sharing, maybe have a military role in convincing people you're serious. but you have to accomplish them away from the spotlight with more qualitative actions than merely bombing things from the air. bombing from the air comes down to physics and chemistry. changing the situation on the ground is more complex. i remain worried we are doing what we can, but not doing what we need to be. we have to focus more on doing what we need to do. >> do you think the policy is too focused on the military? what is your assessment?

what do you think the policy is right now? >> that is a great question. in part, that is the challenge for the administration. what is the policy? what is the regional strategy and how does this fit into the other things we care about? things like what happens in damascus, in our relationship with iran, how posture for the long-term. how does this fit into a broader vision for the region? it feels like it is very reactive. we are reacting to the videos and the sense of threat. we are reacting to the reports of thousands of foreign fighters that potentially threaten the west. that lends itself to a whack-a-mole approach. military solution is not the

only solution, but it has to be part of changing the landscape on the ground. this is about the laws of physics and geography. this group has created the largest safe haven in modern history. you have to dislodge a group like that. that takes military force from the air and ground. one criticism from the military standpoint is to execute a long-term strategy like that in a complex environment like syria is going to take more than just proxy forces hoping can build the forces over time to take on the fight in a place like syria. the danger for the policy is a halfhearted attempt to dislodge the group, and at the same time we are distorting the policies that matter to us on things like iran and syria. >> juliana, i know you have done work on this.

i was surprised yesterday when ambassador samantha power called it "eesill" or something like that. i know the president calls it isil. some of us call it isis. where is cole porter when you need him? [laughter] what is the deal? what is the name of this outfit? >> we can confuse it even more because isis calls itself the islamic state. it rebranded itself in june. in the arabic world, it goes by daish. but isis does not like that name for itself. the problem for the government is it wants to refer to the group did not validate the idea it is the islamic state. if we drill down at the name, in arabic, the rob is the last word that refers to either syria or greater syria. is at the end of isis is this.

the greater syria refers to the levant. there are some in the government who want to come up with ways to talk about it differently. daish could be among those options. the french announced they will be using that. that is not to validate the name islamic state. >> did we ever come to closure on obl and ubl? the government had a whole debate.

>> the question of lexicons is important for two reasons. the group is trying to hearken back to history and the lure of the movement they are trying to lead. this group establishing itself as the islamic state is announcing itself the vanguard of the new movement giving the right to the imaginings of ubl and trying to give life to that. one of the dangers is in its inspiration, it is not only establishing territory, but inspiring others to imagine what is possible in terms of an islamic state. the other thing important about lexicon from an american standpoint is we go through contortions to make sure the terminology we use does not inadvertently aggrandize groups. jon brennan gave a speech at csis early after president obama took office talking about not using the term islamic extremism

and jihad because jihadists use that term to validate themselves. lexicon matters quite a bit. the problem is we contort ourselves quite a bit to describe the enemy. >> let me ask all three of you, the secretary of state said last week there is a part for every nation to play in the fight against isis and terrorism, including iran. what is the role of iran? how do they fit into this? >> iran is in an interesting position because on the one hand they hate these guys as much as anybody. partly because isis is attacking their allies in iraq, in syria. it is attacking some of their allies in iraq, the kurds, who

they have a historic relationship with despite the fact they have a historic district of relationship with the united states. iran also fears u.s. plans for the region. iran does not want to give things up to the united states without getting something in return. i think where that leaves us is the challenge of how to work in parallel with the iranians without coordinating with the iranians, certainly without cooperating with the iranians. it seems whenever we ask the iranians for something, the next part of the conversation is, what are you going to do for us? the challenge, i think our diplomats and others are up to it. how do you signal to the iranians what we are doing, what we have an option to do but will

not do in deference to them, what we might do that will annoy them but maybe we won't in case other things happen? and keep that in a constructive direction and not fall into the trap of if you do this, we will do that. on a series of levels, that would put the u.s. in a much more -- >> where do you see iran in all this? >> that is one of the most difficult questions. iranians have learned and played a great game of duality. where there is commonality of interest, they have been able to work with the united states or other adversaries while at the same time attacking those interests. the u.s. and iran were aligned in attacking the precursor to isis, islamic state of iraq. at the same time, the revolutionary guard was corn mating against forces to create instability in iraq.

they were working on narcotics issues with nato while working with the taliban. being opposed to al qaeda while taking steps to put senior al qaeda leaders under custody, but allowing al qaeda facilitation networks to operate through iran. iran is a curious animal in this game because they have learned to play multiple games at once. they can feed from one hand and bite the other. that is what makes iran difficult to work with. i don't think we are going to find the sweet spot of commonality in this context. if you're going to see activity happen, it will happen in parallel. not in coordination. >> in the middle eastern context, in able to play two science is seen as a sign of

sophistication. >> i think right now the challenge for the administration and why kerry is making the distinction is because they are trying to assemble this coalition of arab countries. they want to bring the saudis on board. what are they going to say about coordinating with iran? the white house announced today the president will be meeting with netanyahu when he comes next week. the israelis have long voiced their concerns with the u.s. engaging with iran on nuclear talks. >> the iranian and saudi foreign ministers met this week. >> samantha powers said yesterday on all three networks we have gotten commitments from some arab countries to join in airstrikes on syria. do you have any idea who they are? >> an official said there will

be multiple arab countries making military commitments. >> did they tell you one name? >> it would not be going out of the limb to save the uae. jordan would also be likely to be one of those commitments. >> will you take that seriously? >> i think it will happen. it won't be terribly decisive. >> don't you think it would be important? >> it is important to say we have the uae and other countries with us. in libya, it made it seem like there was a broader coalition. it does not necessarily get to

better outcomes down the line, as we have seen in libya. there are lots of roles people can play. you can be the refueling guy, the logistics guy. you can fly surveillance. i think one of the things that will be discussed is whether the egyptians signal something visible in support as a way to try to limit hostilities. we just announced we were giving them 10 apaches that had been in the u.s. for repair. one characteristic of this is you can contribute on many different levels, just like in your church or school. there are different levels. i think we will see different levels. the challenge is how to make it out up to mean something. you need all of these pieces. you are going to rummage sales and picking up this and that that people contribute.

how does that translate into the sustained campaign the administration has committed to doing? and not just for a month. this is a multiyear commitment long after people have lost interest in the headlines. >> what is the latest number? about 190 airstrikes we have flown so far? as that made any significant difference that you can tell? >> i think the notion of degrading the group, remember we have two goals. degrade and destroy isis. for our allies, it has been effective. the release of isis control of the dam and other infrastructure, very important. the beginnings of getting supply lines probably important longer-term. the real question is we can do

this in iraq. you can imagine what the scenario in iraq looks like with the peshmerga fighting along with us. what does it look like when it crosses the syrian border? i think that is the tricky military, political, social conundrum. in terms of the coalition, it is important symbolically to have these countries involved militarily. it also is critical to have them behind the u.s. going after the ideology and funding. this is where turkey becomes important. and providing a patina of legitimacy in the heart of the middle east for what is to happen. this is not going to be a

month-long effort. this is going to be years in the making if we are to really destroy this group. >> two other important pieces for the sunni state. one is persuading the sunni tribes to come back over. one is creating incentives for the government of iraq to be more inclusive. they have been ostracized from their neighbors. one thing that is attractive is you can be closer and in a better environment. that is something a country like saudi arabia can offer the iraqis. > this is a moment of opportunity for the u.s. to rejuvenate some of the strained relationships it has had an serve in a leadership role that the region has been thirsty for. not that we put thousands of troops on the ground but that the u.s. serve as the quarterback aligning forces to go after this group.

the region and world is hungry for u.s. leadership. the question is whether we can do it credibly and whether we have staying power. >> you're close with the president. you have interviewed him numerous times. you have been with him on good days and bad. it took a while for them to get to where he is now. talk about that. i am amazed to hear him in his recent speech. he has come a ways. >> i looked at the david remnick interview from last january. one of the key takeaways was something obama said about how we are swimming in the rapids of the river of history and he takes the long view.

he is writing the paragraph now. his presidency will be seen as a paragraph. these are not going to go away with my presidency or in the next. he would rather take his time and take a more cautious approach. when you look back, in august, some of his messages and statements have hurt him now and hurt the credibility of this administration. whether it was saying we don't have a strategy, whether it was in the same press conference saying our goal is to degrade and defeat isis and then saying there are manageable problems. it reminded me of the attitude and issues obama had before the first debate with that romney. one of his advisers at the time said he was suffering from presidency disease and had kind of checked out. through august, that was the

rhetorical approach he was taking to isis. for him and his advisers, at primetime speech and his speech at nato, they knew they had to change the language they were using and come out much more forcefully and send a stronger signal to the international community, to congress, and the american people. >> one thing i find interesting. i have seen a lot of administrations. you get into the second term of every administration and there are always one or two people that leave. they did not like what happened. they write these books and so forth. i can't remember when as many people in the national security area -- i mean, yesterday on "60 minutes" you heard leon panetta. you have had gates come out.

hillary clinton has said she disagreed with the president. we know martin dempsey, jim jones, the former national security advisor has not been that complementary. what do you make of this? >> in defense of the president, just because something is not working does not mean something else would have worked better. we consistently have that problem in the middle east because there are lots and lots of stupid ideas. sometimes we do the stupid things. it is not to say anything other than the stupid idea would have turned out better. this is an administration where even on the inside people complain this is a very tiny circle who make all the

decisions. there is a lot of debate. people get tucked into these endless meetings, and then the decision is made when two people are in the room. i think that has created an environment -- >> who do you think is the president's most influential advisor on foreign policy? >> i have never been in that small meeting. i can't tell you. people say the president remains closest to denis mcdonough and valerie jarrett weighs in on a lot of issues. the speechwriter has a mind meld with him. whether susan rice is in that circle, i don't know. >> you have not mentioned john kerry, secretary of state. >> john kerry is not here very

much. he is not, honestly. proximity matters. when i was working in the state department in the early years of the bush administration, colin powell was terrified to leave the country. >> that did not seem to bother henry kissinger. >> i think you see an erosion of trust and confidence. you also see this in the stories about the split between military leadership in the president. i think the president and his inner circle have been trapped by their political narrative of not wanting to be the bush administration. in that way being sort of

captured by inaction. not all action is advisable. they've really been captured by inaction. i think there has been frustration at the top level there has not been more strategic vision. the redline debate with respect to syria, i am not sure the president realized how strategically relevant that moment was. john kerry has issued an indictment against the assad regime for chemical weapons. the president countered his own redline, undercut his secretary of state. and i think begin a cycle of growing mistrust and lack of confidence among his senior team. i think you are seeing reflections of that in what you described. >> when it comes to the decision to not arm syrian rebels, they

were digging their heels in. there was a story last week quoting some off the record sessions he had with even then he said, he defended the time it took to vet the rebels. they look at this and say in hindsight this is not a silver bullet. they can't say this but it was a few months later the u.s. through covert operations began arming moderate rebels. they said it was important to take that time to vet them. to his point, this is a tight inner circle. when they do reach out, one of the biggest criticisms is there is never any follow through. the president has a bunch of

former national security aides, advisers, who came to dinner a couple of nights before the big speech. it is not just a matter of having them come to the white house to listen, but whether or not there's going to be any follow through and follow up. >> do you have any disagreement with jon on who are the people closest to the president? who would you say are the most influential in foreign policy? >> i would put susan rice in their and samantha power. in the white house state today, probably denis mcdonough and ben rhodes. >> let's talk about this new group we are hearing about. all of a sudden, this name surfaces. who are these people and where did they come from? >> this is the al qaeda senior leadership caravan that moved from afghanistan and pakistan into syria.

in part, to take advantage of the chaos and to plan from syria attacks against the west. cbs news broke the story. the reality is the group that is most lethal and focused on the west is not necessarily isis. it is this al qaeda group which is linking other elements of the al qaeda constellation. linking the master bomb maker in yemen with other parts of the network. in some ways these guys are becoming an operational and strategic core for a new al qaeda universe. that is why officials are worried about them. >> is the reason the president is so circumspect or focused on listing what we are not going to

do -- i was just thinking about what juan zarate said. do they just not want to be the bush administration? is that is what is going on here? >> i think getting involved in a -- in iraq and open-ended way, that's true. the alternative to it, how do we think about terrorism from what is truly strategically important. i was just thinking about what he just said. was it, i just don't want to be the bush administration? is that is what is going on here?

one of my concerns about the way the administration approaches it is often times who want to get the language right. i'm not sure there is the same commitment to the policy follow through on the language. you need to set the language so you can set the bar. abrams is probably the best person i have seen a government being able to set the language in government. what feels to me to be happening is in a lot of cases, there's a lot of focus on exactly what the language is in the policy doesn't always follow to it. a few months ago, in many ways, with the speech on isis. i'm not sure they are doing as well as they need to understanding strategically where they need to go. they had a big middle east policy review and notably, nobody involved was outside the white house and nobody had ever lived in the middle east.

>> talking about communicating. you've done a lot of work on this. juliana has become kind of our expert on jihadist social media. it is amazing how sophisticated they are. >> isis has its own media arm. they are behind a lot of the savvy and well produced videos we are seeing. it is all shot in hd, looks straight out of hollywood. and it had one thing the intelligence community really took note of, that it had an american at the end, un-american

isis fighter in syria overseeing syrians dig their own graves and then he killed them. one of the reasons why he had this sophisticated partnership is that it is propaganda. they brought more western fighters and they bring their knowledge as well. we have french jihadist reaching out in french to french individuals. german to germans, brits to brits. i had a crazy experience last saturday or two saturdays ago when i was in the newsroom and we started to get word that there was another isis batting video that was about to be released.

i had uncovered this twitter handle called jihad matchmaker. and i went to see anybody who had been mentioning it and i clicked on somebody and i saw that they were teasing out a new video that was coming. and within a few minutes, they posted a link to that video and a few minutes later, they posted one that said it's up on youtube. so the other side of this story is that you have youtube, facebook, twitter, and what is the responsibility of these companies to try to crack down on their use of social media to get their message across. facebook has done a better job of that but then they went to a russian competitor and over the last couple of weeks, it got a little better at tracking down as well. there is also a counter argument that the intelligence community makes which is we don't have the

intelligence on the grounds of this is how we are able to track these guys and get more information about them. it really is remarkable to see the advances they have made and how they might be going about editing these videos. they are clearly shot with very sophisticated amber is. someone has the possibility that they can be in chat rooms and talking in the chat rooms about how to be editing these videos. >> do these people actually meet people on these -- making -- i can just see this. >> we asked the very same question. we were tipped off to this site, we didn't have it completely verified. however, you go on and see that

these guys are actually using it, there was one guy that said something like, hook up brother up and send other twitter handles for other jihadist. going through that twitter handle took us to a new video. they are on it and using it. >> this is a group that has employed sexual savory and have taken over territories. it is a movement that is well-organized and no status -- and knows how to support its followers. the multimedia approach is one of the most open campaigns you have seen of any terrorist group. 400 pages laying out, all of their attacks for a particular year, broken down by region. not just of the headings and brutality but how they are trying to govern and demonstrate

legitimacy and engage different patrols. this is an all-out multimedia efforts to gain legitimacy and terrorized their enemies. >> there is a personalization to this which we've never seen before. it is unprecedentedly sophisticated ways. not just on a chat room but reaching out to you wherever you are in whatever language you speak and bringing you on board. >> have the 62nd videos and one of them showed us a zealot and in syria going around and handing out ice cream to little children. it shows the softer side and thus -- a way to say that we are not all the headings and blood and guts. come join the fight. >> let's step back a little bit and talk about iraq right now. the new prime minister is trying

to put together a new government. how is that going? >> slowly. the iraqi government negotiations are slow, full of threats, full of uncertain progress and the failure to put things together. i wish i were more surprised, but it seems to me that the normal of politics and iraq is the kind of messy politics we are seeing. >> do either of you think this new government can be more inclusive? that you can field an army and provide ground forces, ground combat operations, and we could support with airstrikes?

>> i think you can rejuvenate the iraqi military force. i think that is doable. the real question for the new government is, can you revert the sense of bitterness and disillusionment among the tribes that have bought into the idea of putting their lives and communities at risk and felt very much abandoned by the maliki government. there is lingering resentment and disillusionment there. and even after the new government was formed, you heard tribal leaders and others talk about that not being enough. can the government be inclusive and the rejuvenation of the sons iraq that you begin to see inorganic countermovement and fighting force in western a rack. those tribes also sort of cross the border and so isis has erased the border between iraq and syria.

some of these tribes exist along the borders as well. >> one of the other challenges follows directly with what we were saying, a spectacular sense of entitlement that people have, that we are the key and therefore we have to get this much. you end up sharing 300% of the pie. and there's not enough haida go around. getting people's expectations down the size is a real political challenge and that is part of why you can't rush this because everybody comes in with this stratospheric sense of entitlement. >> yesterday we had a roundtable and joe lieberman was there. he said we should just go ahead and attack assad and get it over with. disable their air force, crater

their air fields, just do it. if you were sitting with the president, one of the advisers that suggested that, what would you say? >> la, la, la, la, la. [laughter] >> i don't think you open the gates of damascus to islamic marauders, but i think you can triangulate here. they are known for the ability to do multiple things at once. the u.s. approach to things is very linear or binary. we can ensure that what we do doesn't legitimize him and his rule long-term i'll also attacking ice.

keeping in mind he has traded with them and allow them some buffers. he has attacked the free syrian army at think you can do some strategic things. not an all-out bombardment but things like attacking the airbase taken over by isis where they got military weaponry, fighter jets, blow it to smither wanes -- smithereens so that they don't have it or the free syrian army for later. let's due installments with the last bastion of what the free syrian army has held territory. it a are under assault from the government and isis. let's look at the artillery. i think you can be creative without opening up all-out war. >> i wonder under what pretext of legal justification would you have for doing a lot of these things. if we were to take down the assad government, we would then be thinking about how to prevent the slaughter of 2 million now wife that certainly would feel

vulnerable. this idea that we are one step away from breaking the logjam and all hell breaks loose. >> and sometimes you do nothing and hundreds of thousands -- >> i totally agree. >> and a worse nightmare is emerging. >> there are multiple bad options. >> i think there are bad options and worse options. >> and they did not change that much from a year ago when obama was faced with a chemical attack and deciding whether or not to try to take out a thought that way. one of the reasons they didn't is because they didn't know what would come the next day and that question still exists. >> i want to go to questions in the audience and while you're thinking, tell us why isis is different from anything we have

confronted here. >> they have more men, material, and resources and an established safe haven in the heart of the middle east in a way that al qaeda has only imagined and the world we have not seen before. the danger is they can not only inspire foreign fighters, we have seen plots in australia and others disrupted around the world, but they can also find inspiration in a new platform for this global movement. to continue to hold territory, we saw the syrian kurdish refugee problem because they are pushing in the northeast and syria. they overran some iraqi military, they are not stopping. >> they run a war economy and use the same smuggling routes that they have tapped into it.

and they are flush with money. >> please tell us who you are. >> good evening, ladies and gentlemen. i am from syria. i moved here a couple of months ago. i resent the whole thing. i want to be like a different advocate. i am lucky to know the americans point of view but i want to tell you what the syrians or muslims say. for america, they are helping the world. they are getting rid of terrorism.

but for the rest of the world, there is a country attacking a muslim people. the owners of the u.s. government are treating with, let's say, the symptoms, not the root of the problem. they did it in afghanistan, iraq, and they are doing it in syria. people just fighting in the mountains, we are seeing them on social media. i am very educated and i can understand the reasoning behind the intervention. the others are not and they are using that in the propaganda. what my question is, i didn't mean to take so much time. what is the american government policy in terms of media justifying this intervention? for the rest of the islamic world or in general, they believe that isis is created by the cia. it is dominating. the same thing with al qaeda, the same thing with radicals.

my background is arabic islamic, they are driven by an ideology. this ideology is if you kill those people, you will see much worse than those people because they have the ideology. if you compare al qaeda with isis, both having the same goal, they are competing for who is the worst. if you eliminate isis, you will see much worse people because for the new group to earn legitimacy, they need to prove that the previous people are not doing enough to support islam. i want to know about the media and what you're doing to address the arab world. >> i don't think we are very

good at persuading people that we come in peace for the most of the world and it is partly because there are so many well-developed operations and so many people that the u.s. does come with an agenda against islam. i also think that we shouldn't want to be loved. i think we should explain what we're doing and why we're doing it, and demonstrate the sincerity of our actions. if people want to say the united states that treated isis -- assad was desperate for an enemy like isis. because that creates precisely the opponent he wants to fight against. who do you really want to win? side with me against these monsters.

and i think there is a lot of money either coming directly out of damascus or implicitly permitted by damascus. you can talk about it. i'm not sure you will persuade people. i think the united states as a government is miserable at keeping secrets. it is absolutely incapable of having a secret strategy. we can't do it. i think we should be clear about what we are doing and ultimately not get too involved with the approval rating of the united states in a country like egypt. talk about what you're doing, leave it where it is and part of our goal should be if people are equally better leave against the united states, make them neutral and grudging as a success. they can go bitter and violent and for a lot of people, that is a big step. >> i've heard a counter

narrative is well. deep resentments and the syrian population for what is felt to be abandonment from the west. it is a dammed if you do, if you don't approach which is often the case in middle east policy. i think that's why the administration has put so much stock on coalition building and legal and international legitimacy. i think we are terrible at trying to counter violent extremism and the ideology. the most credible voices don't set in washington and new york. they sit in baghdad, cairo, and beirut. >> my question is about the organization. a couple months ago, there was news in pakistani media from saudi arabia and that pakistan used to send -- being directed in the syria area.

[indiscernible] i ask this question to the general. he said this is all propaganda. we have been telling america for a couple of decades that they will not get anything out. she will tell you it is pakistani killing other americans. my question to you is this. if they are really that kind of evil thing, why didn't we go after them? if they are not, maybe we have to learn a lot from them because one penny equal to $100, they are more effective. i hope you understand the question. >> absolutely. i think there are competition relationships across the board

here. pakistan is a great example of this where clearly the pakistani intelligence and military have seen defense in the context of afghanistan and forces as part of the national security and their national interest. and has been direct opposition to u.s. interests at times and pakistan has been an ally and the same thing goes with guitar, an ally to the u.s.. and is also supported extremist causes. there is a balance in the relationship and part of it is having an open and honest conversation and holding these regimes to account, realizing that we need them. we can't go it alone. >> is formerly with the state department focused on iraq.

my question is that one of you used the term dismissed. what is the role of the clerics in terms of discrediting isis? i have read the carotid and nothing says you can rob banks or behead people without sharia law or trade women for sex trade. what role do you see in terms of organizing the islamic clerics like the islamic scholars to make public statements and discredit them? >> we have seen a lot of that already. this is one of the things that started in saudi arabia in 2003 when they themselves were victims of a terrorist attack and really began to line up the clerical establishment. we have certainly seen more of that. i spoke to somebody today who is in saudi arabia last week who knows the government is scared that clerics are lining up.

the people are not so hostile with the government and the clerical establishment. if you look at the defeat of al qaeda's ideology. and remember there was a genuine fear that the germ of jihad as him would spread throughout 1.5 billion muslims around the world and it really didn't. he systematically underestimate the role of states, the state's relationship and the clerical establishment systematic rejection of jihad as him. i agree that there is a role for clerics to discredit this. what i hear from people that know more about islam than i do is that the theology of isis is somewhat more mainstream than other jihadi ideologies. it's not quite as easy to discredit but certainly the effects in terms of slavery of

women and murders and all those other things, there is ample argument in islam that says it is absolutely atrocious and we will continue to see as part of this effort -- >> i'm sorry, john. >> i'm done. >> we have heard and you have confirmed here that there is an endgame. you pointed out the introduction. if i recall correctly during the kosovo campaign, there were

several thousands identified the third-rate enemies to bend them to our will and let kosovo go. each sortie is one machine gun, this progression at this rate, it will be the moderate fighters that will take more than one year to train them. the iraqis you illustrated, we're not sure how long it will take to organize them and get enough credibility to convince the tribal leaders to come on board and really reengage in another surge if you wish like 2008. given all this, there is an endgame with no boots on the ground, no american military forces committed. we don't really understand who is on our side at the moment. their allies may come, mostly of symbolic value.

we do not call it that when the president said it will be more akin to yemen or somalia. it's not a conflict, no american boots on the ground and so far, 190 sorties. is that serious? >> i think it's an excellent question. >> part of the danger here is strategy and execution that is basically half measures. you're absolutely right especially as you move across the border. this is a president that has staked his claim on ending wars. and he has not wanted to invest. he has not used the term or in his presentation to the nation. and not wanting to commit boots on the ground other than special risers and spotters, perhaps. at the end of the day we will have to do great for a long time